GOP calls for broader gun rights, unlimited clips

This is a discussion on GOP calls for broader gun rights, unlimited clips within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by mlr1m
I remember thinking that President Reagan would never support the Brady Bill. Stuff happens.
Michael
Yep, '93 (Brady)-'94 (AWB) the same ...

...
Mass shootings , such as the one in Aurora, was a posted "gun free zone" ....

I can neither confirm nor deny that. The national media has made more inaccurate statements about CO law than factual. I personally have yet to see a "No firearms" sign on any business in the Denver metro area, let alone anywhere in CO. Not saying that there are not any, I just have not seen any. Those signs do not carry the weight of law.

Other items of inaccuracy - I have yet to find a movie theater in CO that serves alcohol, again, no restrictions in place in CO law for guns in places that serve alcohol.
Guns not allowed in places that charge admission - up to the discretion of the property owner, again not in CO law.

I don't do sports, but I doubt that the stadiums that do have metal detectors are in compliance with CO law.

The shooter wore body armor, so evidently he had some concern that he would be on a two way range.

Grasseater // Grass~eat~er noun, often attributive \ˈgras-ē-tər\
A person who is incapable of independent thought; a person who is herd animal-like in behavior; one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong; a foolish person.See also Sheep

And yes I am prepared to be flamed, so flame on. Most of the country has no stomach to change gun laws so why in the world would Republicans give them a reason??? IN MY OPINION, there is no good reason, other than paranoid preppers or SHTF nuts, for more than 30 round magazines, clips or bullet holding thingies.

To my knowledge the US military uses only 30 round magazines? I have never heard reasonable argument for more than 30 rounds unless it’s from a wannabe zombie hunt or some guy that has a house full of tactical pants, pens and flashlights.

The downside to such an issue, regular people that have no dog in this fight will find themselves asking why would law abiding people need this, they likely think 10 or 20 or 25 is plenty. They will perk up and think mass shooters could have 60 or 100 rounds!

They will vote, we will lose, and we will turn millions of people who currently don’t care into anti-gun voters

PS… I have voted for one Democrat in my 50 years life and that that was for a local sheriff.

There it is again........Why do we NEED this? Why does this ugly monster continue to show it's head? This is not about our needs, it's about rights. Are you aware that the military uses belt fed weapons as well? Are you aware that the Aurora shooter used a 100 round drum mag? We already have access to high cap mags (in some/most states). The hope is to regain this in all states.

My point is about the greater good for gun owners. In todays world I feel its far smarter to push for better carry laws than pushing for things that make us look like what many non gun owners fear the most.

The army has tanks too but I don't need one.... As for belt fed, I think we both know I was talking about rifles carried by every soldier, if you didn't get that, I apologize.

My point is about the greater good for gun owners. In todays world I feel its far smarter to push for better carry laws than pushing for things that make us look like what many non gun owners fear the most.

The army has tanks too but I don't need one.... As for belt fed, I think we both know I was talking about rifles carried by every soldier, if you didn't get that, I apologize.

Points made on the premise of the "greater good" and to allay the "fears" of the sheep will probably not get much support here...